By Mitiku Adisu

The Ethiopian Diaspora has turned a corner. I think we are onto something hopeful. From typical indifference we have transformed ourselves into active participants in the affairs of our homeland. Our engagements, hitherto, may have been sporadic, provincial, and oppositional in mode. The time has now come to organize, depersonalize, and target our pressing concerns. That could mean selecting few options that yield maximum benefit, identifying what we do best, and conserving our energies for reflection and strategic action. In other words, we have to recognize our limitations and, under the circumstances, trust participation from fellow Ethiopians would complement those limitations.

In the past fifty years we have hopped from monarchial wilderness to God-less to ethnic wilderness. Those painful transitions are not without their rewards�if only we knew how to capitalize on them. First, however, we must admit that we have contributed to the sorry condition. There is no escaping this fact. Second, with �God o�erhead� we can each be an influence for good. Third, we know essentially what works and what does not in effecting an enduring change. We are a people acquainted with violence and its manifestations; we know that violence breeds violence. We know that local votes alone will not carry the day. We know ethnic misrecognition and misrepresentation diminishes our collective will and aspirations; ethnic politics as stated or unstated public policy begets resentment and misallocates scarce human and material resources.

The current Tigrayan-led government constantly accuses ethnic Amharas for past misrule; Amharas respond in kind, never mind the two are cousins. Ethnic Oromos accuse both Amaharas and Tigrayans for a system that has left them marginalized. The lesson is not difficult to grasp: no single ethnic group can legitimately muster national following; only a policy of �live and let live� presents a better chance for stable governance; and the crises we have faced are the result of incompetence, shortsightedness, and illegitimacy, not necessarily of ethnicized leadership.

Time is of the essence here: our unending disputations over �what might have been� do not readily translate into �bread and water� for the people we vow to stand for. Time is slipping away and we are not growing younger. Indeed, we may be losing the chance to enjoy the fruit of our labor or see it espoused by the new generation. That is sad. It is time to speed up our efforts and get off the political merry-go-round that promises the illusion of taking us somewhere. It is also time to revive or build on good practices no matter who initiated them.

We know that indiscriminate imitation of others can be futile, disempowering, and degrading. We also know that insularity causes discontent and allows foreign elements to advance their own agenda at our expense. Finally, we know that educating women is the antidote for low enrolment, high drop-out rate and improved health of school children. We know that such a policy, if implemented properly, disallows the exploitation of women, increases their participation, and fosters family and community cohesion.

That we remained in the wilderness for so long should not surprise us as much as our inability to produce competent and compassionate leaders. Hence, the current worldwide civic discourse should embolden our resolve from which will emerge such a leadership. So far our inclination has been to seek resolution to our enduring dilemma primarily not from within but outside our community. Like a naughty child we keep running to international bodies with our broken toys. We entreat outsiders to scold fellow Ethiopians and expect them to decipher our twisted handwriting. Though one may argue this is the normal route to political adulthood, to continue in this state of affairs is unproductive and unpardonable.

For far too long we received our cues from those we are opposed to. We need to actively unlearn that culture. We oppose for the sake of opposing, disfiguring, and destroying the other side. That approach is, in short, a conversation killer�unless one�s intentions are just that. But then that is not how communities thrive. We need each other to sharpen our faculties in regard to a quality of life we collectively aspire to. We simply cannot do it alone. We need more face to face talks, cognizant of the desperate condition we are in and the preference of some to uphold the status quo or introduce a deceptive agenda. Whether we like it or not, we have been placed in this boat named Ethiopia. And only in persevering and in prioritizing the important from the urgent will we reach the shore. This approach to leadership is more stable and nourishing than attempting to down a moving target of individual biases.

Merely focusing on real or imagined foe is debilitating and imprisoning; keeping the enemy guessing is invigorating and liberating. In the end, whoever sets the tempo prevails. One needs also to reframe the debates and go on the offensive to make a meaningful progress. The intractable problem is, therefore, not ethnic politics, corruption, or political infighting per se, or even arbitrary killings. These are elements that we will have to contend with as long as we remain human. Rather, the problem is that we have been unable to identify and execute a national uniting agenda or if we did, the opportunity must have slipped through our fingers.

Our thoughts come in piecemeal and in disregard for other views. Often we mistake our personal prejudices for the hopes and fears of every Ethiopian. What percentage of Oromo, Amhara, and Tigrayan peasants really care who rules the land if all they get is useless wars, broken promises, an entrenched contempt for public input, and misappropriation of the nation�s wealth for personal gains? Has the prevailing disillusionment created the conditions for the proliferation of expatriate NGOs?

We are simply too wrapped up in the past. For some, the past is full of grief, fear, and anger. As Hannah Arendt observed, �time does not run backwards.� And yet many in our community still nurse grievances and a personal vendetta of thirty or more years. For some, unfortunately, removing these sentiments from their speech will leave them with little more to say.

A meaningful interaction requires that we differentiate between the personal, the political, and the international. The South African �truth and reconciliation� efforts are instructive in this sense. Despite all the rhetoric of ethnic fallout, the Ethiopian situation does not come close to the South African racial reality. In other words, forgiveness in politics is possible only in differentiating the personal from the public and in participating to realize a common goal. We should also remind ourselves that we never cease to relate to each other whether we are friends or foes as long as we live within the same cultural-historical matrix. Is it possible for the Amhara, the Oromo, or the Tigre to define themselves apart from the rest?

We have to come to terms with the fact that we continue to speak randomly and incoherently. Issues are picked up reactively and dropped without much deliberation. This does not mean we ought to agree on issues or their interpretation. However, if we intend to be heard and taken seriously our concerns must be articulated in a coherent and sustained fashion. For example, in the aftermath of the 15 May 2005 elections many of our fellow Ethiopians wrote Open Letters to heads of government, UN and European agencies. This is a commendable exercise. Some of these were individuals, others �coalitions� or �concerned� groups. In the absence of a regime to facilitate such concerns, it is understandable that individuals took upon themselves the responsibility of discharging their citizenship duties. Imagine for a moment President Carter receiving four different letters only to find that the statistics quoted and the historical references are at loggerheads, and that the letters are full of typographical and technical errors. What would you think he will conclude? First, it is highly unlikely that he will respond to �concerned� Ethiopians or individuals who may not even be using their legal names. Second, he will conclude that there is no consensus among the complainants. This situation is where we are most vulnerable and where, much to our chagrin, third parties and a plethora of experts continue to exploit.

I am not here arguing that we assign a select group to do the talking for us and the rest of us refrain from airing our opinion. Rather, my concern is that to represent a common cause not every one fares well and that our domain expertise is bound to limit some of us.

I contend that clarity of a national agenda and its effective communication is missing. We live in image-conscious world where relevance, to an extent, depends on capturing the current public mood. The incumbents understand this so well that that they have mounted an effective public relations campaign. The opposition could not afford to do any thing less. Reiterating what a group stands for, what its intentions are and how it attempts to realize them becomes a sine qua non for galvanizing its members and gaining the respect of non-members. Repeating a message to reinforce memory and elicit action is a well-worn concept employed by communists, marketers, and religionists alike.

It may be time to launch a new website or upgrade an existing one. The merger and/or removal of some sites will not be missed except by those whose intention is to dis-inform and not to dialogue. In place of ideological and ethnic warehouses, the new site would have departments that reflect national issues managed by a board and contributing editors whose expertise is in the relevant fields. The issue page will be periodical and, unlike the popup electronic page, predictable. In a world of increasing fluidity and disorder, the page will radiate a sense of stability, order, and beauty. The goal is to portray the best of Ethiopia to the world, not simply tackle her myriad transitions; to educate (not mis-educate) the public and policy framers in major Western nations by posting credible articles in influential papers (such as the Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc); in sum, to interpret Ethiopia to power centers and the vice versa.

I am afraid we have wasted plenty of time talking to each other or past each other when what we need to do is to target those actors that greatly influence our lives. If this approach worked for the Polish, the Irish, and the Jewish, it certainly will work for us.

This will mean effective mobilization and utilization of human and material resources at our disposal. In cases of resource limitation prudence dictates that no stone be left unturned to realize a national goal, even when that entailed great risk and personal sacrifice. In contemporary terms, nothing better exemplifies the act of sacrificing personal ambition for national glory than the electrifying triumphs of our athletic teams.

Those placed in positions of national responsibility constantly face the possibility of making the wrong decision. And that is exactly why they need counsel. As the Good Book says, �for a lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure.� We need to be open to all the counsel we can get. We need to act. And to paraphrase Lord Tennyson, it is better to have acted and failed than not to have acted at all.

Excluding individuals because of their past may reflect more on our inability to look beyond the past or the present than on the presumed misdemeanor of those we exclude. After all, we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. And if we know a thing or two about good guys, it is that they, unlike the bad guys, forgive and take as a challenge the inclusion of others, recognizing, in the process, their own humanity and the enormous task that lay ahead. It is not helpful to label some �terrorists� and others �fascists� or �ex-communist leftovers�. I can see someone to my left preparing to pounce on me. All I am saying is this: if we continue to throw out everyone with a wart (or a big wart or a very big wart, for that matter), no one will be left standing. This is the tragedy and hypocrisy of our unstable life.

I am not here discounting the need to satisfy the demands of the law for convictions of crimes committed; that should be pursued vigorously. My argument is rather to suggest that in light of resource constraints, squandering what could be used for common good amounts to national folly and/or self deception. Dr. Negede Gobezie and others like him may have compromised their credibility as leaders but their exceptional scholarship in European and American cultures is irreplaceable and should not be allowed to go to waste; a way must be found to harness their expertise for the sake of the nation. This presents a unique challenge to any leadership; and there are ample cases (for example, leaders of the American civil war) where true leaders surmounted such human limitations to bestow upon their nation a lasting legacy of peace and principle. Similarly, other cases required making a pact, so to speak, with the devil himself; I don�t believe even Mengistu has attained �devil-hood�.

Let us remember that the individuals we ostracize also evince, in their own way, a national feeling; perhaps not equal to ours, but a feeling all the same. We should grant each other a second chance so we can redeem ourselves and prove we are capable of learning from our checkered past? In other words, by casting others in a bad light, we may be inadvertently setting up a trap for ourselves.

Let us consider one other thing. What if our prime minister struck another golden opportunity and changed course? I mean like reclaiming a sea outlet for his beloved Ethiopia. What if he began playing to Chinese tunes? Unthinkable? Okay, the latter may seem far fetched but think again. A decade and a half ago no sane person (including PM Meles) thought possible to trade Albania for America or Marx for the market.

The Chinese Bear is, even as we speak, roaming the neighborhood; �revolutionary democracy� is closer to the heart of Beijing than to the arm of Washington. In the end, our prime minister�s agility coupled with principled patriotism may be what the moment clamors for to salvage Ethiopia from the grip of sponsored ethnicism.

It is safe to conclude that our community at home and abroad has discovered the potency of the electronic media. Considering the role of mercenary PR agencies, however, our efforts are like baby talk. Prime Minister Meles is not acting alone; his right hand man, more than likely, is not a native son but a foreigner. In other words, why he does what he does is a function of a series of events some of which are unrelated to the long term interests of the nation.

The late Edward von Kloberg, who was the consummate Washington insider, for example, �sanitized and sold� Mobutu, Ceausescu, Sadam, Samuel Doe, etc on the assumption that supporting them created the environment for investment and, ultimately, for democracy (or opposition to tyranny). This cost money and lots of throwing lavish dinners. Kloberg easily recouped his expenses by asking his desperate tyrant clients up to $5000.00 per day, including a first-class airfare. For the likes of Kloberg, �shame is for sissies�; fairness and justice are somebody else�s worries.

It is worthwhile remembering that the world is the arena for the powerful and not for the just; the strong are preferred over those who hold onto what is right. You object peacefully to ballot rigging, you get the bullet. A pre-emptive and illegal state of emergency is declared by our prime minister, and President Carter, on a mission to oversee the elections, approves it as �a cautionary measure, temporary in nature, geographically limited to prevent any confrontation of a violent nature between winners and losers here in the capital city.� The communiqu� was later amended, though the damage could not be undone.

Information is power; but money buys them both. Why the current Ethiopian government prevailed is primarily because it has found the secret of speaking the language of the major global players. At the risk of sounding simplistic, I would submit that an African leader who can masterfully juggle certain phrases (reform, rule of law, law and order, democratic elections) has a better lease on life and a chance to garner moral and financial support than otherwise. Hence, there is no excuse for not learning to play by these rules. If you want to be heard and taken seriously, you need to know what you want, where the center of power is, how to speak to that center, and when to oil it.

Museveni, the darling of NGOs, has become so conversant in their lingo that he could scold his benefactors and change his nation�s Constitution at will. That is skill, albeit crafty. What can the Ethiopian Diaspora do to supplement the efforts of those back home? This: learn the facts, organize, and publicize. The Ugandan miracle is slowly fading; Botswana and Mauritius are now the new kids on the block. Not long ago, Ivory Coast was championed as the model of African development. The concept of �successful� development is relative, of course. In our case, we know that the testimonies of Tony Blair and Professors Stiglitz and Sachs about Ethiopia are not particularly useful or accurate. Such lavish praises often serve to massage individual ego or to sway domestic constituency while they stifle our voices. Hence, we have no choice but to take our case before the taxpaying public in those localities. Professor Donald Levine�s interview on Chicago Public Radio is a good example of what could happen when a person knowledgeable and articulate in Ethiopian and American societies has access to the media.

Professor Tecola�s quick response to Yara International�s insensitivity and social irresponsibility is another example of how to defend our interests; Ethiopians in Norway are making their mark in publicizing the un-informed and un-ethical actions of the fertilizer company. This and similar effort must be pursued until a desired conclusion is reached. There is nothing multinational conglomerates fear more than bad publicity. Few years ago, Nestle hoped to receive $6 million compensation from our government for a business it did not own at the time it was nationalized. It was around Christmas time and famine was stalking the land. Oxfam subsequently publicized Nestle�s outrageous and cold demands resulting in loss of face for the company and later scrambling to save face by donating the amount to development work in Ethiopia. Perhaps we need to go out and search for more of these outlets to present our case in a dispassionate and professional manner.

Web managers also need to do a follow-up and report on stories and information they feed us. More than ever before, we need to cautiously select our allies. Is the influential U.S. Christian community a possible ally? We have �friends of Ethiopia� in returning Peace Corps, missionaries, academes, NGOs, Athletic Associations, Environmental and Human Rights groups, Mother and Child Advocacy groups, Ethiopian Jews in Israel, and successful Ethiopian-Americans, etc. None of these groups will have reservations about turning Ethiopia into an outpost of American democratic idealism. What must happen to mobilize such groups?

I submit that to make headway in the current impasse, our community�s chief strategy should be to identify and consolidate its resources, to organize around few critical issues, and articulate these in coherent and compelling fashion. As someone put it, if you know your enemy and know yourself, you will always win. However, not all of us are capable of explicating legal issues or issues pertaining to diplomacy, politics, culture and public relations. Hence, individuals with area expertise must come to the aid of the nation in this time of uncertainty.

Here are few of our burdens that need expert analysis and follow-up. The list, certainly, is not exhaustive but enough to get the point across. I label them �burdens� because they tend to be intractable and require collective engagement.

The burden of nature. The Nile River has inextricably linked us to Egypt. And Egypt�s policy towards Ethiopia has been consistently less than favorable. In light of the increasing privatization of water in the hands of few global corporations, where are we headed? What does the Meles-Mubarak talks portend for the nation? What is behind Egypt�s recent grain donation? Is Egypt poised to extend its Middle East role to the Horn of Africa? Which third parties and to what end are they facilitating this interaction? For those of us not on the receiving end, it is easy to be critical of the Egyptian donation to defend our national pride. But the better approach, I believe, would be to understand the subtleties of such relations that our government is unwilling to share, and strategize accordingly.

The burden of international institutions. The role of multilateral, bilateral institutions (World Bank/IMF, USAID) and NGOs in the affairs of our nation over the past 50 years needs to be studied with the view to seeking alternatives and bringing to light shady and unethical practices.

The burden of powerful individuals. Past and present Ethiopian leaders have all been too powerful to receive public censure. The economic and political landscape has now changed so drastically that the ruling party runs both the government and the business sector. One individual, Sheik Al Amoudi, stands head and shoulder above his competitors. And considering his now famous letter and the strong reaction it generated, we may have to set aside the talk of the individual�s legendary generosity, citizenship and democratic rights and discuss the nation�s economic security and the power such individuals wield to shape politics in ways that may not be practical in the long-term. Incidentally, some intellectuals and websites readily and roundly applauded the entrepreneur for taking risk to invest in a �hellish� environment or for being more Ethiopian than most of us. What is an entrepreneur supposed to do? Take risk, of course. It sounds hollow, does it not, to commend the bishop for doing his duty of offering prayers and pronouncing benedictions? Let us not deceive ourselves. Symbols do have power. Generosity is itself a form and cost of advertising, often designed to shield unwanted scrutiny and thereby reach a calculated end. That is why beer companies donate to schools or advertise against drunk driving.

Despite the Sheik�s claims that all of �my acts are transparent and public knowledge,� and therefore, �I need not prove this,� Hannah Yohannes�s brief but dispassionate and well argued article still demands an appropriate response. Could websites commission study papers on this and similar issues? I am hoping someone will follow-up on this.